Ford v. Crigler

• Citation: 74 S.W. 661
• Parties: FORD v. CRIGLER et al.
• Decision Date: 27 May 1903
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

74 S.W. 661

FORD v. CRIGLER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 27, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Charles Ford against Robert Crigler and another. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

B. F Graziani, for appellant.

D. A Glenn, for appellees.

NUNN J.

It appears from this record that appellees, Robert Crigler and Jacob Crigler, doing business as Crigler & Crigler, in the city of Covington, were engaged in the wholesale liquor business. They occupied a building three stories high, the upper story of which they used as a storage room, where they stored, for all those who desired it, household goods and other articles. They had been conducting this storage house all the time they had been occupying that building. The only way by which they could store goods in or remove goods from the third floor for their customers was by means of an elevator. One Lieut. Wetherill had his goods stored in this room, and employed Expressmen Edmonds and Routt to remove his furniture from appellees' storehouse to his home. These expressmen had the appellant Charles Ford, employed to aid them in the removal of these goods. They went to the storehouse of appellees, and were shown by appellees this elevator, to be used by them in lowering the goods from the third floor. It appears from the record that, while using the elevator, Edmonds discovered that it was out of repair and dangerous, and that he notified them of this fact, and they promised to repair it, but failed to do so. The evidence also showed that it had previously fallen while in use, with the knowledge of the appellees. All this was denied by the appellees. And it appears that while appellant and an assistant were loading the elevator with part of Wetherrill's goods, and appellant was placing a chair on some other goods that they had placed on the elevator, he placed one of his feet upon the elevator, and it suddenly and unexpectedly to him gave way and fell to the cellar below, whereby some of his ribs were broken, his face bruised, and his person otherwise severely injured. The record shows that he had no knowledge or information of the defect in the elevator, and this is also denied by the appellees. The appellant brought his action against the appellees, the issues were formed, and a trial had, which resulted in the court giving the jury a peremptory instruction to find for appellees, to which ...